KAUSHLIYA DEVI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR URBAN LANDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Director, Land and Building Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated October 9, 1985 (Anx. 6) whereby he directed the Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur to reassess the petitioners under Section 15 -B, Rajasthan Lands and Building Tax Act, 1964 (here in after to be called as 'the Act') and also for quashing the order of the Assistant Director, dated March 20, 1985 (Anx. 5) refusing to refund the amount of tax deposited sarlier and his notice (Anx. 7) issued under Section 15 -B of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.: The petitioners own Suresh Bhawan, 803 Chopasani Road. Jodhpur. The Assistant Director assessed it as one unit, valued at Rs. 837000/ - and levied tax of Rs. 6370/ -w e.f. April 1, 1979 by his order dated July 21, 1981. On appeal, the Deputy Director Urban Land Buildings Tax, Jodhpur, set aside the order dated July 21, 1981 and remanded the case with certain directions by his order dated October 20, 1982. After remands the Assistant Director held that the said building consists of five separate units and levied tax. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Kauahlya Devi moved an application for refund of the tax deposited earlier. The respondent No. 1 forwarded the application to the respondent No. 3 who, instead of passing order for the refund of the amount, directed him to assess the said property under Section 15 -B of the Act by his letter dated October 6, 1985 (Anx. 6). In compliance thereof, notice (Anx. 7) was issued to all petitioners. The respondents admitted in their reply that the respondent No. 3 issued latter (Anx. 6) to the respondent No. 1, directing him to re -assess the said building under Section 15 -B of the Act. It has also been stated in the reply that there was no question of refund of the exceas amount of tax deposited earlier when the case was remanded for the enquiry and directions were issued to the respondent No. 1 to move the respondent No. 2 for the review of his order in the light of the decision of the Revenue Board given in Ramesh Chand Hoda v. Assistant Director, Lands and Buildings Tax Ajmer, 1985 RRD 557. It has also been stated that the writ petition is premature and the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing objections before the Assistant Director (respondent No. 1) and appeals before the Deputy Director (respondent No. 2).

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Section 15B of the Act permits an assessing authority to re -assess building or land if he has reason to believe that for any reason the land or building has escaped assessment or has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed. The assessing Authority, according to him, had no reason to believe. He himself did not apply his mind while issuing notice (Anx. 7) as he acted in pursuance of the direction (Anx. 6) of the respondent No. 3 and as such the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed with the re -assessment of the said building under Section 15B of the Act.

(3.) THE first question for consideration in this case is whether the notice (Anx. 7) has validly been issued to the petitioners by the respondent No. 1. Section 15B of the Act runs as under: